Junk
English Home
Introduction
Excerpts
About
Ken Smith
Other
Books
New Junk
Reviews
Contact Ken
Send
us your best Junk!
If you've spotted a choice scrap of Junk English, submit
it here and Ken may add it to the web site! Read Ken's book first, of course.
Read what others
have sent.
 Order your copy online today! Only $10.36... |
 Buy the book! |
Junk English: Reviews
Press releases, reviews,
quotes about the book....
The Boston Globe,
December 2, 2001 (Katherine A. Powers)
The sword of righteousness smites with a fearsome blade in "Junk English"
by Ken Smith, one of its targets being "Battlefield English," as it
happens. I know I would have loved its idiosyncratic harrumphing when I was young
and intolerant, and who hasn't such customers on one's list every year? Smith
has no time for persiflage when "Fat-ass Phrases" and "Invisible
Diminishers" are afoot, to say nothing of "Palsy-Walsy Pitches"
("Few things are as irritating as a sales pitch cloaked in the lexical mantle
of friendship"). Smith's object is to vanquish junk English, which favors
appearance of substance, broadness over precision, and loudness above all, and
which, to the author's displeasure, has replaced "hi" with "hey."
The Washington Post,
November 29, 2001 (Jonathan Yardley)
The English language exists in a condition of perpetual peril, its American branch
most particularly, assaulted as it is from all sides by those who would reduce
it to impenetrable jargon, pop-psychological blather and evasive euphemism, but
it is not without its defenders. H.L. Mencken in "The American Language," William
Strunk and E.B. White in "The Elements of Style," Philip Howard in "Weasel Words,"
R.W. Holder in "A Dictionary of Euphemisms" -- these are only a few who have tried
to bring the rest of us to our senses, to speak up for what is good and noble
about the language and against what is debasing and trivializing.
Now Ken Smith steps to the fore. The author of several books whose titles ("Raw Deal: Horrible and Ironic Stories of Forgotten Americans," "The New Roadside America") fail to suggest the passion for good English that animates this lively, funny and impeccably right-minded little volume, he begins with a succinct declaration: "Junk English is much more than sloppy grammar. It is a hash of human frailties and cultural license: spurning the language of the educated yet spawning its own pretentious words and phrases, favoring appearance over substance, broadness over precision, and loudness above all. It is sometimes innocent, sometimes lazy, sometimes well intended, but most often it is a trick we play on ourselves to make the unremarkable seem important. Its scope has been widened by politicians, business executives, and the PR and advertising industries in their employ, who use it to spread fog before facts they would rather keep hidden. The result is . . . a world of humbug in which the more we read and hear, the less we know."
Smith is, of course, preaching to the choir -- it is difficult to imagine that "Junk English" will be noticed, much less read, by those who most could profit from it -- but it is an instructive and entertaining homily all the same. He takes mighty whacks in all the right places -- jargon, cliches, euphemisms, hyperbole -- but he doesn't swing blindly. He understands that jargon has its place -- "Although jargon often sounds ugly to outsiders, it speeds communication within the community that uses it" -- and that "cliches, though popular objects of scorn, are useful when they most succinctly express an idea; deliberate avoidance of an appropriate cliche sometimes produces even worse writing." In other words, Smith may be passionate but he's also sensible.
In a section about "free-for-all verbs," for example, he acknowledges that "there is no law against inventing one's own verbs" before citing a few ludicrous instances of what happens when "things get a little out of hand," i.e. "We're efforting to work this out" or "She tried to guilt him into returning the money." In the end, though, being sensible about language boils down to insisting that words mean what they properly mean and are used accordingly. Thus, for example, Smith insists that "dialogue" and "discussion" are not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably; that "complimentary" does not mean "free"; that "experience" does not mean "feel"; that "facilitate" does not mean "ease"; that "generate" does not mean "produce"; that "lifestyle" does not mean "life."
It is, as that brief list immediately suggests, an uphill struggle all the way, for American usage in its present state invariably insists on the pompous instead of the plain, the euphemistic instead of the honest, on false intimacy instead of formal courtesy. We use what Smith calls "palsy-walsy" language not to establish friendship but to make deals or sales: "From our family to yours," "Allow us the opportunity to earn your business," "These are just a few of the ways we can help."
Smith obviously has spent a lot of time making notes about the ways in which we mangle and abuse our language, with results that are impressive in their thoroughness and depressing in their egregiousness. Occasionally he overlooks the obvious -- among euphemisms he mentions "customer care representative" but not "courtesy call," and among the aforementioned palsy-walsy language he inexplicably overlooks "Your call is important to us" -- but then, as he says at the outset, he intended to write a short book and as a result had to leave out many atrocities. The ones he includes more than do the job. "Junk English" is terrific.
Time Out New York,
November 28, 2001
In times supposedly beholden to the almighty image, words have lately snagged
a few leading roles. Remember chad? And surely you'll think twice before next
uttering crusade. Still, the high profile of these vivid examples springs from
their rarity; for the most part, everyday American English, whether spoken or
written, is a tepid stew of imprecision and fever-pitched hype. It's as if we've
become convinced that "good writing" is the province of literature; everywhere
else, we expect, and too often find, nothing but flimflam.
In Junk English, Ken Smith explains how our language got this way. After branding contemporary English as "the linguistic equivalent of junk food," he offers an alphabetized compendium of the stylistic quirks that are embraced by ad agencies and public-relations firms to trick up crass salesmanship in the garb of a larger purpose.
Most popular books about the misuse of English differ from Smith's in that they're directed at those who traffic in language. Smith's slim book is aimed not at writers but at readers -- all of us -- and attempts to awaken our interest in good language by making us aware of each sleight of hand worked by the carnival huckster. Smith describes the "viral nature of language in action": Companies wish to present themselves, in the eyes of their employees and the public, as being about something more elegant or useful than simply making money; language from the business world is then picked up by news reporters writing on nonbusiness topics, thereby "reduc[ing] matters of politics, environmental protection, and family to mere dollars and cents." Finally, we take up the "trendy" phrases and bring them into our conversations, where they thrive until the next batch invades. Concise words fall out of favor or are misused beyond any meaning. Take unique. Shamelessly used when special or unusual apply, cheapened by modifiers like virtually and somewhat, unique has been rendered toothless.
Some of Smith's entries are words that turn up not incorrectly but to deceptive ends -- to obscure the unknown fact or dodge the unwelcome question. About the verb form of address: "When not used to describe the location of a building, [it] is often employed by those who wish to be evasive yet sound as if they are not." His examples show how address may mask the absence of a more forceful, obligated word: confront, answer, stop.
Much of this isn't exactly news. In fact, the ubiquity of sloppiness is Smith's main objection. And he is right to care about the primacy of language. As human beings, we're tied to words; we need them. Clear, genuine words, free of ulterior motives, instantly stand apart. When asked on the morning of September 11 about the loss of life at the World Trade Center, Mayor Giuliani did not hedge: "More than any of us will be able to bear," he said. While President Bush floundered with bromides and rhetoric, Giuliani's simple reply spoke straight to our need for the truth. The hallmarks of his leadership reached us through his words -- through language.
Recent events have tested the mettle of everyday language and found much of it wanting. For weeks after September 11, corporations, hamstrung in the face of calamity by their usual soapbox fakery, struggled incongruously to console -- to be sincere -- in full-page ads. The early weeks of the anthrax threat showed politicians learning anew how little platitudes do to meet the stark demands of leadership. New phrases that have sprung up from the old sales-pitch roots are either wan or overeager. Suddenly, precision and candor matter most. The thesis of Smith's book, which last summer might have seemed merely grouchy, gives rise to a challenge: Can we restore to our words a trenchancy that will lift them beyond the marketplace?